On 07/02/2011 13:54, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > 1. they can declare a conflict with each other, so that the packaging > system will never let both get installed in the same system. > > Unless both communities have a large overlap, this one makes both > happy, until a third package shows up trying to claim "node". > > 2. they can be forced (by the TC) to drop their claim of "node" in the > common namespace. This is not likely to happen. > > 3. It is possible that they could do nothing, since there is no direct > file conflict (different paths). Not good for the unaware user that > installs both, but I am not sure whether we forbid this kind of > potential pitfall in the first place. > > 4. as the one with the weaker claim, node.js can move its executable out > of the generic namespace or rename its executable to something else. >
Another proposal : 5. nodejs package provides /usr/bin/nodejs, following policy. nodejs-notrenamed package links /usr/bin/node to nodejs, and conflicts with node package. + Both packages node and nodejs can be installed, with full functionnality. + If the renaming is too much a burden for the user, he can install the not renamed version, knowing he can't install node package in that case. - Depending on nodejs-notrenamed must be impossible (is this possible ?) - All packages depending on nodejs must be able to work with /usr/bin/nodejs. - It is still violating policy, though in a more flexible and twisted way. Jérémy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d502603.8040...@edagames.com